New Classical Architecture in Townhouse Developments

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I wanted to highlight a trend I've been seeing a lot in townhouse developments (and to some extent, housing developments) in Metro Vancouver. About 60% or more of townhouse developments are designed to be either faux Tudor, Georgian, or Craftsman. I find it interesting because this is not at all present in condo developments. Below are examples of some developments around Metro Vancouver that are designed to in the 'New Classical' style.

Feel free to add some other developments you think fit into this category and discuss.

Some examples:

Duchess & Horley - Norquay, Vancouver



Greenfield Living - Surreey



Spires Gate - Richmond



Kentwell - Coquitlam



Latimer Heights - Langley



Chelsea Gate - Delta

[bluefox]

Craftsman was a great SFH/duplex architectural style in its heyday. Elegant and not gaudy. I like that it's making a comeback.

And honestly we could do with more brick walkups in town

[Marshal]

[QUOTE=BobLoblawsLawBlog;8545506]I wanted to highlight a trend I've been seeing a lot in townhouse developments (and to some extent, housing developments) in Metro Vancouver. About 60% or more of townhouse developments are designed to be either faux Tudor, Georgian, or Craftsman. I find it interesting because this is not at all present in condo developments. Below are examples of some developments around Metro Vancouver that are designed to in the 'New Classical' style.

What do you mean by "Classical?"

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Marshal

What do you mean by "Classical?"

Probably this: "New Classical architecture is a modern movement in architecture that continues the practice of classical and traditional architecture. The design and construction of buildings in these traditions is continuous throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, even as modernist and other post-classical theories of architecture have been more dominant. Since New Classical architecture is not an architectural style and can appear in various forms, contemporary classical buildings might be also, although not correctly, be described with the terms Traditionalism, Neo-Historism (or Historicism/Revivalism), or simply Neoclassical Architecture, implying the continuation of a specific historical style."

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, I was confused too. My definition of "classical architecture" looks more like this:


(Madeleine, Paris; Mayfair Gallery)

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by bluefox

Craftsman was a great SFH/duplex architectural style in its heyday. Elegant and not gaudy. I like that it's making a comeback.

And honestly we could do with more brick walkups in town

May I ask you a question please? Are the first two pictures (the top ones) examples of Craftsman style? If yes, then I agree with you. Neither gaudy nor fake.
What I dislike is the ostantious and rather tasteless attempt to build in neo-Georgian (unless very, very, disciplined, AND in the right 'hood) nor Faux Tudor, which usually looks hokey.
I think it is important to remember that, much as Georgian and Tudor are elegant (Georgian) and charming (Tudor), they somehow seem out of place in this new land of ours.
Sure, there has to be some leeway for design variation, but I think that to be in keeping with the architectural history of a place is important, and that the old Vancouver style fits that.
By the "old Vancouver style" I mean houses (as in many North American citites) which were built perhaps with a front porch / verandah, gabled windows, and upstairs balcony.
There was a 'colonial,' or 'New World' look to them right from Cape Cod on up.
It is tempting to do Georgian or Tudor, but here in North America, all this tends to look affected and gaudy.
The only cities where neo-classical townhouses would unquestionably fit in would be, for example, Washington DC, designed in the neo-classical style throughout by
Monsieur Pierre Charles L'enfant. (Even the White House has its original model in Dordogne, southwest France).
But Vancouver is a city that grew from the wooded Canadian frontier, and respecting that, despite the elegant temptations of Georgian and Tudor, is much more authentic, IMHO.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

May I ask you a question please? Are the first two pictures (the top ones) examples of Craftsman style? If yes, then I agree with you. Neither gaudy nor fake.
What I dislike is the ostantious and rather tasteless attempt to build in neo-Georgian (unless very, very, disciplined, AND in the right 'hood) nor Faux Tudor, which usually looks hokey.
I think it is important to remember that, much as Georgian and Tudor are elegant (Georgian) and charming (Tudor), they somehow seem out of place in this new land of ours.
Sure, there has to be some leeway for design variation, but I think that to be in keeping with the architectural history of a place is important, and that the old Vancouver style fits that.
By the "old Vancouver style" I mean houses (as in many North American citites) which were built perhaps with a front porch / verandah, gabled windows, and upstairs balcony.
There was a 'colonial,' or 'New World' look to them right from Cape Cod on up.
It is tempting to do Georgian or Tudor, but here in North America, all this tends to look affected and gaudy.
The only cities where neo-classical townhouses would unquestionably fit in would be, for example, Washington DC, designed in the neo-classical style throughout by
Monsieur Pierre Charles L'enfant. (Even the White House has its original model in Dordogne, southwest France).
But Vancouver is a city that grew from the wooded Canadian frontier, and respecting that, despite the elegant temptations of Georgian and Tudor, is much more authentic, IMHO.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

May I ask you a question please? Are the first two pictures (the top ones) examples of Craftsman style? If yes, then I agree with you. Neither gaudy nor fake.

I would say those two examples are very decent facsimiles of Craftsman in the context of the realities of building housing in Vancouver. They lack some of the signature characteristics like a wraparound porch as we don't have the space nor are these the types of developments for features like that.

I agree with you that, in a general sense, it is odd for a city to embrace an historical style for which there is little/no precedent. That's the same reason why people always get hot under the collar when there are one-off examples of things that don't fit the neighbourhood. It wouldn't necessarily go over well to see someone buy a property in any given part of the city, tear down what's there and replace it with a pagoda.

Tudor, I think, is appropriate for Vancouver as long as it follows the same vein of paying homage, and there is precedent for Tudor. You'll see plenty of older Tudor(-esque) buildings near Hemlock and 12th/13th. Same with Georgian, there are actually many examples of Georgian style SFH in Arbutus Ridge.

What I think I want to see less of as time goes on is Vancouver Specials and the so-called "Millennium Builder" architecture that has proliferated in south Vancouver – styles that were the result of bylaws/planning restrictions and only became popular because they're from a time where function was prioritized over form.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by bluefox

And honestly we could do with more brick walkups in town

Brick facing as opposed to brick buildings (brick doesn't do well in an earthquake).

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What I dislike is the ostantious and rather tasteless attempt to build in neo-Georgian (unless very, very, disciplined, AND in the right 'hood) nor Faux Tudor, which usually looks hokey.

When I looked up some images to make sure I was getting the various eras right, there were some in each one that were very ornamented while others were much plainer and 'clean' looking. As long as the styles are kept simple with clean lines, I don't have an issue with any of them here.

I've seen variations on this in many of the Brit shows I watch and wish we had something like it here (esp during the rainy half of the year).